A NEW, NEW, NEW re-examination of an old case(in progress)

I consider this workup to be more of an addendum or footnote to Gazrok's excellent base report, and I've tried to heavily reference certain aspects,
and provide a new point of view, not really more than an exposition of a new theory, which came out in 1995, but was in German, so it wasn't examined
fully.

So it doesn't replace anything, it just widens the already complex nature of this sighting/event.

Though there's a substantial 'cold chills' factor to the Fish map and this K-K map, I would caution that statistically it is a bit weak.

One great example give to me by one of the Mods was this.

Get a piece of typing paper and draw a small map of the towns in your area from memory. Put a dot at the locations of these town. Try to get at least
14-20. Scale it to fit a reference map, but don't cheat or peek.

Then after you label the dots, overlay it to the reference map. Often you will be off by a considerable amount. We don't remember the distances that
well, but maybe rememer that Washington DC is to the right and 'above' Richmond Va.

Now take this map of dots and find other areas of the US and over lay it and see if cities don't fall under those dots. Now rotate the map any way
you like to find other matches. You have a ton of possible 'hit's.

Of course the Fish map tried to find yellow suns, and places close to Earth, so that's a plus. But it's a small refinement. In our experient we
could limit it to large towns, but would still find a lot of matches.

Of course the K-K map is important, but it's still not statistically significant, and it uses asteroids (which is similar to allowing any towns in
the US in our experiment). Using the Solar System and having the Sun in the middle is a great refinement and of major interest, but it's still got
that flaw, and it didn't fit the 1961 orrery data, so they had to let the sim run to October to find the best match.

Important, chilling, entertaining and thought-provoking. But we still must view the case and this contribution with caution.

There are many traps in this case. Central tendency, lumping several highly strange things together and using it additively, using the 'it couldn't
be terrestrial' trap.

Thus, IMO, it's better to give a ranking system and rate all the individual points. Gazrok goes over the major points and some of the objections in
his initial report quite well, so consider that the gold standard.

I think my report is a minor but significant contribution and I tried to make it mostly a reference-based work though I did draw some tentative
conclusions, and gave some pros and cons.

Please feel free to add other thoughts in this vein, and thanks again for reading.

(corrected the red strike out entries)
From page 235 One version of the Marjorie Fish Map:

OK, here's a correction on the stars that Marjorie Fish used. I was a little confused with the concept of the Gliese terminology. That is a reference
book or catalog of the known stars and has a 'Gliese number' which corresponds to the older terminology based on the Constellations. As Fish
mentions she found a couple stars in the newer Gliese catalog which seemed to not have been identified at the time Betty made the drawing.

Though this seems like a real 'clue' to the reality, it's an example of 'begging the question', in that our 'dots' have been fitted to a
potential, or prospective location and the Gliese catalog helped to name one or two more.

Even the 'strong' fit and yellow main sequence stars don't really 'cement' that this is a real map. We're taking a remembered event, and a
dreamed recall and trying to fit these dots to a location close to us, with criteria, but there's the 360 degree freedom of rotation I talked about
earlier, and the mass of stars available which helps promote a bit of an illusion.

So, though I think it's ok to be thrilled and captivated and encouraged, we should still view this kind of thing cautiously, and not strictly as
evidence of 'reality' of this event.

I think even Marjorie would say it -uses- science, but it's not an example -of- good scientific exclusion (or inclusion) nor is it statistically
significant. It's not like a cartographer's plot or a legal blueprint, which is a 'hard fit' and evidentiary.

Hope that makes sense. I just don't want my researching and collating and reporting to seem like it's a stronger reason to be convinced of any ET
hypothesis in this case. Each case and each fact have to be considered individually. If we want to apply science, then we have to use statistics and
peer review. This paper would not pass peer review, obviously, it's speculation. It was presented to the MUFON convention of 1974
(www.nicap.org...)

Astronomy magazine did think it was interesting enough to publish it in one of their issues for reader comment.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.